DEAD: Dell C1660w Wireless Color Laser Printer, $99 FS (or less)

[SunnyD]

Staples currently has the Dell C1660w Color Laser Printer on sale (online only) for $99.99.

Link to Dell Site for Technical Specs & Features

The price gets even better if you drop one of the many available coupons on it, such as the current $15 off $100 (filler needed) or the $30 off $80 that is available from various sites (purchase may be required). I paid $4.49 for the $30 off $80 coupon and ended up with the following:

Merchandise Total: $174.99
Coupons & Rewards: -$105.00
Shipping: Free
Tax: $5.25
Total: $75.24

Why is this printer worth posting as a hot deal? Well, it is currently rated as the 3rd "cheapest" laser printer to maintain, despite being a color laser. Even requiring reset chips for the toner cartridges, a full set of toner refills including the chips cost under $30, or a full set of generic cartridges under $40 if you don't want to mess around with refills.

The printer features b/g/n WiFi connectivity, and will print directly from iOS and Android devices as well. The only thing that has been noted is that this printer does not appear to have native Linux driver support.

I bought one to replace my Lexmark C543dn... as nice as the Lexmark is, the fact the toner reset chip for one cartridge costs as much as a full toner replacement set for this printer makes this deal pretty damn hot.

 

[Slug]

I'm in for one. Thanks!

 

[BenJeremy]

Apply $15 off code 90717 for a final price of $85.98 after adding a $0.99 filler.

I went ahead and ordered one. I have an HP AIO inkjet which fills most of my needs, and as a telecommuting HP employee, I get free ink, but it is horrible with envelopes. I'm hoping this one works as well as my old B&W Dell AIO.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Saw that, I have decided to try and wait on brother 3170.

The Dell is good, but it has no automatic duplexing and it also doesn't have ethernet port leaving you to rely on wifi or usb port, neither one of those is a good substitute for ethernet port

 

[SunnyD]

Saw that, I have decided to try and wait on brother 3170.

The Dell is good, but it has no automatic duplexing and it also doesn't have ethernet port leaving you to rely on wifi or usb port, neither one of those is a good substitute for ethernet port

Good printer, albeit at more than twice the price when on sale. Sure you're paying for the duplexer and ethernet connectivity - but as I said to someone else the C1660w supports manual duplexing and who doesn't have WiFi in their home/office anyway? Connectivity is connectivity regardless of the medium. A printer isn't going to need a gigabit drop. If you need the automatic duplexer on a daily basis, that's a completely different story.

 

[desura]

looks pretty hot

 

[IndyColtsFan]

How is the photo print quality for this printer? I saw Amazon had the toner refill kit with 4 additional chips for like $30. Can anyone comment on the quality of this kit and the ease of use? I'd use it to replace my old inkjet if the photo quality is OK.

 

[TerryMathews]

How is the photo print quality for this printer? I saw Amazon had the toner refill kit with 4 additional chips for like $30. Can anyone comment on the quality of this kit and the ease of use? I'd use it to replace my old inkjet if the photo quality is OK.

Personally, I don't consider any laser to be photo quality but YMMV. They tend to color shift based on temperature, and the gamut is usually suited for primary colors over flesh tones.

I've tried a few different times over the years and they all end up looking unnatural. Now if you found a color laser that was designed for photo reproduction that would be a different story I'd imagine.

 

[SunnyD]

How is the photo print quality for this printer? I saw Amazon had the toner refill kit with 4 additional chips for like $30. Can anyone comment on the quality of this kit and the ease of use? I'd use it to replace my old inkjet if the photo quality is OK.

IMHO, if you want "photo quality" prints, you're far better off uploading and ordering prints from your local drug store photo finisher. That'd even be my recommendation versus an ink jet printer once you factor in consumable costs for actual "photo reproductions" (assuming you have an ink jet with the extended photo color inks and using photo quality papers).

 

[desura]

How is the photo print quality for this printer? I saw Amazon had the toner refill kit with 4 additional chips for like $30. Can anyone comment on the quality of this kit and the ease of use? I'd use it to replace my old inkjet if the photo quality is OK.

I have a Samsung color laser that I bought a few years ago for $60 shipped (no joke)

Picture quality sucks, frankly. It looks all right from a distance I guess, but close up it is bad.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

IMHO, if you want "photo quality" prints, you're far better off uploading and ordering prints from your local drug store photo finisher. That'd even be my recommendation versus an ink jet printer once you factor in consumable costs for actual "photo reproductions" (assuming you have an ink jet with the extended photo color inks and using photo quality papers).

Yeah, I have an old Epson R340 whose heads are perpetually clogged. I don't print color often enough to probably warrant another color printer, but this deal seemed really good so I wanted to double check.

 

[desura]

If you really want a good photo printer, get a thermal printer.

The thing about those is that they have layers that overlap.

Inkjets in comparison can only interpolate colors to make different shades.

 

[BenJeremy]

Yeah, I have an old Epson R340 whose heads are perpetually clogged. I don't print color often enough to probably warrant another color printer, but this deal seemed really good so I wanted to double check.

I don't know that I will ever buy another Epson. I was pretty loyal to them, since they were the only game in town for printing to CD/DVDs... but I rarely do that any more, and I have the one HP Printer that can print to discs, and it does a far better job (plus, I'm an HP employee, and I can get free ink as I'm a telecommuter and use my printer for work)

Anyway... what really ticks me off about Epson is their "self destruct" code embedded in their firmware. After so may prints, it just prints extremely bad (probably your "clogging" issue) - nothing prints out right and it ruins everything it touches. It's a known thing, and the resets don't really work. I even replaced my last one with an identical model, and it did the same exact thing... then I discovered the truth about Epson printers.

I'll never buy another Epson again, ever. It's pretty sad to make yourself stand out for being a scumbag amongst PRINTER manufacturers, but Epson has done exactly this... expensive inks is expected, but self-destructing printers is complete BS.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Good printer, albeit at more than twice the price when on sale. Sure you're paying for the duplexer and ethernet connectivity - but as I said to someone else the C1660w supports manual duplexing and who doesn't have WiFi in their home/office anyway? Connectivity is connectivity regardless of the medium. A printer isn't going to need a gigabit drop. If you need the automatic duplexer on a daily basis, that's a completely different story.

This is kind of off topic, but yes brother 3170 is more expensive, even when on sale, but it has added features that might make it worth it. I do not consider wifi to be a good connectivity medium. Ethernet has been in wide use for more than two decades, it has good backwards compatibility, and I expect it to stay around for many more years to come. Wifi standards on the other hand change at a neck breaking pace, comparatively speaking, and I have little faith that it will remain backwards compatible 10 years from now. Seeing how my currect printer is >10 years old, there is strong argument for going with 3170. Ironically according to camelcamelcamel amazon had 3170 for $140 just a few days ago but I missed it (darn!).

Anyway, as I said, this dell is a good deal, good price and cheap aftermarket toner/cartridges available. I was simply pointing out some of its shortcomings in case they're important to someone.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

IMHO, if you want "photo quality" prints, you're far better off uploading and ordering prints from your local drug store photo finisher. That'd even be my recommendation versus an ink jet printer once you factor in consumable costs for actual "photo reproductions" (assuming you have an ink jet with the extended photo color inks and using photo quality papers).

While these drugstore prints are typically cheaper, they are usually the same thing you are getting at home. Ive seen the inside of several of these kiosks and they are just a P3 machine running 2k/XP with a small printer on the inside.

 

[SunnyD]

While these drugstore prints are typically cheaper, they are usually the same thing you are getting at home. Ive seen the inside of several of these kiosks and they are just a P3 machine running 2k/XP with a small printer on the inside.

Having worked on those drug store photo lab printers, they're usually thermal deposition printers that use CMY "ribbons" that overlay each other on a special photo stock paper. There's no ink bleed what so ever to speak of and the pictures will never smear at all when subjected to water. The resolution is also a lot better than the best interpolated inkjet can give you. And to be fair, the CPU will be much more current than a P3, but even if it's not, it doesn't really matter because it's the printer that's doing the work and not the computer in the kiosk. The only drawback is always the source media and the fact that it's a digital print.

 

[BenJeremy]

Just got mine... the erasers came in a rather large box with a single air pocket, LOL.

Had to re-arrange some stuff in my computer room, and after running the rollers for something like 5 minutes, it finally calmed down. I setup the wireless, and printed a test page. Very nice. I did a quick test with the "Jellyfish" sample pic that comes with Windows 7, printed on my HP Inkjet and the Dell Color LED using standard paper, and to be honest, the Dell print looks fantastic. The colors are semi-glossy and sharp.

 

[SunnyD]

First impressions:

It's half the size of my Lexmark C543dn, and less than half as heavy. Print output is better imho. Setup is ridiculously easy, except it took me about 15 minutes to enter in my wifi passphrase - that wasn't fun.

But hey, once it's done it's done. It's on the network, discoverable by all my machines, easy to install and bam. Hey, look, it's a color laser printer. I just need to order a couple extra toner packs for it and life will be grand.

 

[TwiceOver]

Nice. Might just have to get one to replace my B&W.

 

[Slug]

I'm pleased with mine. Very easy wireless setup because my password isn't that long! Color output pretty good and prints easily from iPhone app.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I don't know that I will ever buy another Epson. I was pretty loyal to them, since they were the only game in town for printing to CD/DVDs... but I rarely do that any more, and I have the one HP Printer that can print to discs, and it does a far better job (plus, I'm an HP employee, and I can get free ink as I'm a telecommuter and use my printer for work)

Anyway... what really ticks me off about Epson is their "self destruct" code embedded in their firmware. After so may prints, it just prints extremely bad (probably your "clogging" issue) - nothing prints out right and it ruins everything it touches. It's a known thing, and the resets don't really work. I even replaced my last one with an identical model, and it did the same exact thing... then I discovered the truth about Epson printers.

I'll never buy another Epson again, ever. It's pretty sad to make yourself stand out for being a scumbag amongst PRINTER manufacturers, but Epson has done exactly this... expensive inks is expected, but self-destructing printers is complete BS.

FWIW, I had an Epson Stylus Color 600 and it was still running strong after 10 years when I replaced it. I always liked the prints from Epson units the best, closely followed by Canon and HP a distant third. Expensive inks shouldn't be expected IMO and that's why people go to Walmart or CVS for prints rather than pay exorbitant amounts for ink they infrequently use.

I am still tempted by this printer because I would like to have the capability to do infrequent prints without clogging or ink drying out between prints. The $30 refill kit on Amazon is attractive too.

 

[BenJeremy]

FWIW, I had an Epson Stylus Color 600 and it was still running strong after 10 years when I replaced it. I always liked the prints from Epson units the best, closely followed by Canon and HP a distant third. Expensive inks shouldn't be expected IMO and that's why people go to Walmart or CVS for prints rather than pay exorbitant amounts for ink they infrequently use.

I am still tempted by this printer because I would like to have the capability to do infrequent prints without clogging or ink drying out between prints. The $30 refill kit on Amazon is attractive too.

The 600 (I had a R200 that also didn't have the issue) and that whole series was probably the last before they made whatever changes they made to the firmware. That pre-self-destruction series actually fetched more used on eBay than they did new for a while.

I even downloaded tools that purportedly reset the "internal print counter" that makes them print horribly, and it had no effect. Of course, when the problem happens in the middle of printing discs filled with pics of a family reunion to give to your relatives, it is more than a bit annoying that the printer pretty much destroys the media, just to get people to buy a new Epson printer. It's a terrible, unethical tactic that goes way beyond simply shipping shoddy products or having expensive inks.

The bad printing usually results in people buying new ink, too... in an effort to "fix" the problem. It never does. They also used the "ink pad worn out" as an excuse, too... but yet, the printing is actually messed up in a uniform manner. Replacing the ink pad has no effect on the Epson's printing.

At any rate, this Dell C1660W prints beautifully. I haven't tried on photo paper yet, but the results on plain paper shine (literally, the print has some gloss) and blow the ink jet away. If I didn't get free ink for my inkjet, I'd probably use this Dell for most of my printing needs.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

im impressed so far, though do agree the wifi password entry was a chore

 

[SearchMaster]

Nice price but I don't really need it. My Dell 3100CN has been chugging along for darn near 10 years now. I had to have the drum replaced a few times before I got one that worked right, but it's been a solid workhorse.

One funny thing is that it has had a "low black toner" message for almost all of its 10 years, but continues to work just fine. I do have a replacement in case it ever goes bad.

 

[Doomer]

I don't know that I will ever buy another Epson. I was pretty loyal to them, since they were the only game in town for printing to CD/DVDs... but I rarely do that any more, and I have the one HP Printer that can print to discs, and it does a far better job (plus, I'm an HP employee, and I can get free ink as I'm a telecommuter and use my printer for work)

Anyway... what really ticks me off about Epson is their "self destruct" code embedded in their firmware. After so may prints, it just prints extremely bad (probably your "clogging" issue) - nothing prints out right and it ruins everything it touches. It's a known thing, and the resets don't really work. I even replaced my last one with an identical model, and it did the same exact thing... then I discovered the truth about Epson printers.

I'll never buy another Epson again, ever. It's pretty sad to make yourself stand out for being a scumbag amongst PRINTER manufacturers, but Epson has done exactly this... expensive inks is expected, but self-destructing printers is complete BS.

I agree, Epson is garbage. But then again, so is HP.

HP used to make the best printers on the planet but modern ones are garbage and the driver package is the biggest piece of shit bloatware you'll ever find.